"In the last 100 years the IQ scores of both men and women have risen, but women's have risen faster."

To further elucidate the matter, they consult Helena Jamison, a 33 year old consultant who studied English literature at Cambridge:

"I think women probably always knew deep down that they were the more intelligent ones - but as the gentler sex we were quiet about it and let men continue to believe they ruled the world."

Can we stop this madness please?

Today I was treated to a talk from James Flynn in Cambridge, England. Flynn is one of my intellectual heroes. I always enjoy his talks, because they are highly provocative and thoughtful. This talk was no exception. I'll give a quick recap for those of you interested in Flynn's actual data and intepretations.

Flynn looked at IQ scores from ages 14-18 and found 5 modern states where he could get standardization samples with at least 500 people of each gender. The states he looked at were Australia, New Zealand, White South Africa, Estonia, and Argentina. It was important that he used standardization samples, because that means that the IQ researchers made an effort to get as representative a sample as possible.

Analyzing those 5 datasets and throwing away all of the older studies from the prior generation (prior to 1982), he compared men and women on the Raven's Progressive Matrices test, a test of abstract, logical reasoning. Setting the male score at 100, Flynn found that women scored the lowest in Australia (99.5), but in the other 4 nations Raven's scores varied from 100.5 to 101.5. After presenting this data, he noted:

"So they certainly equaled men, and perhaps were slightly above. This has been distorted in the news of my saying that women are incredibly more intelligent than men. As you can see, this somewhat goes beyond what was claimed."

The audience chuckled. Flynn then goes on make the argument that in every country in which women have been allowed full entry into modernity in terms of educational opportunities, they are now matching men on Raven's. As for the fraction of a point advantage in IQ for women,

"I suspect that is a characterological trait. They are also more focused in the testing room just as they are more focused in the classroom. So my conclusion is the sexes on the Raven's is probably dead equal for cognitive factors and there is a very slight female advantage for characterological traits. This is mere extrapolation from what happens at secondary school. You would expect a little female advantage because of temperamental differences."

Flynn notes that in his class at the University of Otago, "2/3rd of the students are women, and 2/3rd of the late essays are men." He says this is a universal phenomenon. He also notes that "I'm not saying the genders are equal. They're equal in their ability to deal with using logic on the abstract problems of Raven's". He points out that if you try to intentionally create a gender neutral IQ test by throwing out items that favor one gender over the other, you find that you can't eliminate a female verbal advantage and a male advantage for visual spatial items.

Then Flynn presents data on the Black-White IQ gap in the United States. He shows that since 1972, Black Americans have gained 5 points over Whites. But strikingly, the IQ gap widens systematically every few years. In other words, the rich still get richer in America, and the poor stil get poorer. Here's his data:

Black-White difference in 1972

Age 4 8 12 16 20 24

-10 -12.4 -14.8 -17.2 -19.6 -22.0

Black-White difference in 2002

Age 4 8 12 16 20 24

-5 -7.5 -9.8 -12.2 -14.6 -17

In 1972, at the age of 4, there was a 10 point IQ difference between blacks and whites on average in the United States. In 2002, the gap had narrowed by 5 points, but there was still a 5 point difference at age 4. By the age of 24, the gap widened to a 17 point difference. This is better than the 22 point difference found in 1972 for age 24, but it's still quite alarming. Flynn doesn't believe that blacks and whites are born with differences in intelligence. As he rightly points out, it wasn't that long ago that some psychologists were arguing that Irish immigrants in the United States were genetically inferior. But when Irish Americans began to invest in education, they completely closed the gap. Instead, Flynn argues that these trends become cumulative, and problems are already evident in preschool. He proposes some environmental explanations, including differences in attitudes toward academic achievement.

He says he is fully aware of the controversial nature of his research and his ideas, but thinks these are serious issues that require rigorous investigation. He believes that IQ trends show us interesting social trends. He told the audience that he has suggested half a dozen studies that could shed light on this issue,

"But you cannot say these things. They are forbidden. Which means of course we go on in ignorance of what actually causes group differences. Which means we can't provide any solutions. When you turn your back on reality you lose the ability to manipulate reality. One would think that is self-evident...I didn't go into this to not try to find the truth."

I have immense respect for Flynn, who clearly is interested in societal progress and the reduction of inequalities around the world. After the talk, I asked Flynn if he'd like me to write a blog post setting the record straight about his data. He said he'd really appreciate that, because when he was interviewed, the interviewer kept asking him leading questions about women and multitasking, clearly wanting to get a particular answer out of him. This really bugs me. I wish we would stop with all the petty gender wars that have no actual basis in fact and address really significant issues. We still have a long way to go in terms of racial equality in the United States. Hopefully Flynn's startling data will open up a much needed discussion. Everything in Flynn's talk is also discussed in his new book Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century. I highly reccomend it if you're interested in hearing his views on these important issues rather than relying on the media.

My extremely square, straight-laced and conservative brother once told me that "Women will never be the equals of men, they will always be their superior!" - I was blown over, I never expected such a statement from him. He was totally sincere, he wasn't joking.

The age group in this study is 14-18. This age group has been well establish that girls are more advanced than boys.
At age 14ish girls end childhood and become adults. They do not have any further to evolve. They are of an age evolution has deemed them capable of raising babies. Boys on the other hand do not reach maturity until they are 18ish when evolution has deemed them strong eough to survive being a make.

What you speak of biological maturity. By 14 a girl, and trust me, I've had two daughters, is nowhere near the maturity level she will be at 25.

So many people confuse these two. At 15, my son realized he had a responsibility to a society around him. At 15, my daughter still believed society had a responsibility only to her. I don't blame her... this is how society trains our children. We have to retrain them to think about becoming mature in society. This is the "maturity" of which will make or break a person, a community and in truth, the entire human population. We need to start getting everyone to the same maturity level where they realize what THEIR role is in it, and to progress toward that goal. We cannot have one group of suppliers and one group of receivers. It stunts maturity for all.

Your brother is completely, 100% right.
The evolutionary trade-off of being physically and mentally superior is the greater energy consumption. This is a good trade for the gender that evolved to be risk tolerant and a bad trade for the one that evolved to be risk averse.

The myth of equal average, but greater male deviation comes from studies done on children around the ages of 11 and 13. It is around these ages that the earlier onset of puberty in girls gives them a once in a lifetime physical and mental advantage compared to their male peers. This is the same reason a team of 13 year old girls has beaten a team of 13 year old boys at football (soccer), but teams of 15 year old boys have destroyed national women's teams on multiple occasions. When IQ is measured in adults, men have the greater average and the same standard deviation.

Boys are beating national women's teams.Nearly every sport is gender segregated. The best women tennis players lost to a 203 rank man after he played 18 holes of golf and downed a few beers.Only about the top 4% of women in the military can meet the MINIMUM male physical standard. The best female chess and esports players lag behind their male peers. Nearly every invention and structure ever made was designed and built by men.The effects of gender on capability has been on display for the entirety of world history.

Hi scott.
You said"Today I was treated to a talk from Richard Flynn in Cambridge, England"
Who is Richard? I think you were thinking of Dr. Richard Lynn who is Flynn's opponent in this issue.I hope we will hear from Lynn, Rushton, Nyborg,... about Flynn's claims.

James Flynn has mentioned on dailymail article that he has "collated IQ examination results from countries in western Europe and from the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina and Estonia". However, he only mentioned three countries and ignores the rest of the collected data which might contradict his conclusion.He also said:"I suspect that the same trends are happening in Britain, too, although the data is too sparse to be sure."!!!
What kind of research is that?!
Could you ask one of your colleages like Dr. Kanazawa, Dr. Lynn or other researchers in this field to give their opinion about Flynn's recent claims?
Thanks

I've been looking at IQ data for a long time and men and women have always scored about the same on g-loaded tests. Even the bad studies conducted that have found somewhat significant mean differences only find small ones. I had a gut feeling the media completely distorted this story because it didn't make any sense at all when checked with decades of research on this issue. Good to see I was right. Flynn's data shows men and women have reached parity on Raven's, not that one gender has surpassed the other in IQ. This is what one would expect if the two sexes are equally intelligent to begin with.

Vierotchka, strangely, my fairly liberal, atheistic niece believes that men are superior, "because of evolution." Go figure!! Everyone has their opinion I suppose.

Scott, no problem. I realized that I forgot to enter my name! I'm not a psychologist or psychometrician, I'm a political scientist that looks at demographic data, so I know a thing or two about basic statistics and how to correctly interpret them.

Scott, your article effectively, but unnecessarily, destroys a notion that few well-informed people still believed. But it leaves another, even more crucial notion untouched.

Rather long ago it was quite firmly established that the MEAN IQs of men and women were roughly equivalent. Any male chauvinist still insisting otherwise is willfully ignorant. But, the very same studies establishing those similar means also indicated that the STANDARD DEVIATION was considerably greater for males than for females.

Even a novice at statistics knows what this means--among approximately equal populations of males and females, there would be more, in fact many more, VERY high and VERY low scores among the males. It takes a relatively small difference in standard deviation to produce enormous differences in absolute numbers at the extremes (both high and low) in large populations like those of the US and Europe.

Why is this important? Because, obviously, it is at the extreme high end that revolution-producing genius is found.

The number of people capable of doing genuinely breakthrough work in mathematics, theoretical physics, etc. is tiny--perhaps a half dozen, maybe a dozen in the world at any given time in each field. Even a small difference in standard deviation would insure that virtually all of these would be men. And a quick glance at the list of breath-taking accomplishments in these fields SINCE WOMEN HAVE ACHIEVED EDUCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EQUALITY shows no reduction in the historical male dominance.

Why must this fact be pointed out? Because the present, and undoubtedly future, male dominance (to the point of virtual exclusivity) in the pantheon of true luminaries in these fields IS NOT and WILL NOT BE indicative of continuing discrimination at the societal or familial level but just a genetic fact of life.

@Roger S: You write like a whiny narcissist who is suffering from andropause. You also sound very intimidated by women.

Also, for the record, all of these psychologists are just that--psychologists. Their understanding of math is very basic. Using a normal distribution to analyze intelligence is an embarrassment to mathematics/statistics. Slapping a normal distribution on human phenomena looks cute and gives nice, pat little answers, but it is fundamentally logically degenerate. I should know, I am a mathematical statistician who has done original research on these distributions.

Scott, your article effectively, but unnecessarily, destroys a notion that few well-informed people still believed. But it leaves another, even more crucial notion untouched.

Rather long ago it was quite firmly established that the MEAN IQs of men and women were roughly equivalent. Any male chauvinist still insisting otherwise is willfully ignorant. But, the very same studies establishing those similar means also indicated that the STANDARD DEVIATION was considerably greater for males than for females.

Even a novice at statistics knows what this means--among approximately equal populations of males and females, there would be more, in fact many more, VERY high and VERY low scores among the males. It takes a relatively small difference in standard deviation to produce enormous differences in absolute numbers at the extremes (both high and low) in large populations like those of the US and Europe.

Why is this important? Because, obviously, it is at the extreme high end that revolution-producing genius is found.

The number of people capable of doing genuinely breakthrough work in mathematics, theoretical physics, etc. is tiny--perhaps a half dozen, maybe a dozen in the world at any given time in each field. Even a small difference in standard deviation would insure that virtually all of these would be men. And a quick glance at the list of breath-taking accomplishments in these fields SINCE WOMEN HAVE ACHIEVED EDUCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EQUALITY shows no reduction in the historical male dominance.

Why must this fact be pointed out? Because the present, and undoubtedly future, male dominance (to the point of virtual exclusivity) in the pantheon of true luminaries in these fields IS NOT and WILL NOT BE indicative of continuing discrimination at the societal or familial level but just a genetic fact of life.

To anonymous—I don't blame you for wanting to remain anonymous when, without evidence or logic, you make assorted childish allegations about me.

But assuming you're capable of rational discussion, I'd be interested in hearing the basis for your dismissal of “normal distributions” in the arena of human behavior, or as you colorfully put it, “Slapping a normal distribution on human phenomena looks cute and gives nice, pat little answers, but it is fundamentally logically degenerate”. Why is it logically degenerate?

As for human intelligence and gender, just as it's true that males predominate at the high end, it's also true that they predominate at the low end. And there's a very good reason for these related facts. A number of genes playing important roles in intelligence are located on the X chromosome. Although females have two X chromosomes, one of the two in every cell of the female body is deactivated in the womb, while males' single X is fully operational in all cells. This has powerful ramifications. If a mutation affecting intelligence, positively or negatively, occurs in an egg cell, and that egg is eventually fertilized and goes on to become a male human being, that mutation's full effects will be experienced by the male. However if that same mutated X becomes a female, the presence of a second, non-mutated X and the deactivation process described above means that the mutation will only be exerting effects in half the cells of her body, including only half of the brain cells. Thus its impact will be greatly diluted, for good (in the case of maladaptive mutations) or ill (in the case of mutations that produce genius).

I hope, Anonymous, that you respond more maturely to this argument than you did to the last.

As an unabashedly female superiority obsessed big man, I assure you that I need not be pitied, and nor do the ideologically assenting, at least not inherently, but I vehemently defend your liberty to proffer your sincere or rhetorical pity as you may. Regardless, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to consult any and all corroboratively authoritative sources, irrespective of leanings; as it stands, my understanding of sociology is inimitably limited to publically accessible, online resources, barring the prospect of altruism on the part of fellow internet users. I attribute this primarily to the fact that I possess no extant, academically sanctioned credentials, and that no feasible means of procuring the requisite faculties to subvert this stipulation presently avails itself to me.

k now thats out the way imma just say if any yall r mens rights tards gtfo u know u dont belong here. also ladies dont believe the hype the smarter the sexier any dude sayin otherwise on some rapist shit and i got ways of dln with them types aight? peace yall :D

Another anonymous, this time with a background in biological sciences. Bravo on grasping genetic underpinnings of these differences. Supporting studies date back as far as nineties and are easy to find. Strange that our statistically gifted friend neglected biological reality during her "original research".

Sorry, Anonymous, but you are clearly a person who never lets facts obscure your misconceptions.

The facts about IQ cited by roger s can easily be verified by simply looking up the scores of any respected IQ test and by checking the most basic mathematics that shows that even a slightly higher standard deviation leads to heavier tails of the distribution and huge ratios between the (higher/lower) standard-deviation distributions. In fact, the further out you go, the larger the ratio gets, approaching infinity in the limit.

This ratio is equal to the ratio of human beings in the two distributions.

The question of finding an IQ test that is not biased toward one sex or the other is a separate question.

I don't care either way! However, it is a fact that male genius continues to far outpace that of female genius in our world. So, again, why is he wrong in assuming this will continue. Sometimes the most simplistic analysis is the correct one.

The key issue here is not the average intelligence, it is roughly equal between the sexes, indeed the vast majority of studies have shown men to be 5 points higher on average.

The key issue that is being overlooked is the relative IQ distributions.

Men's IQs are more spread across the spectrum whereas women's are more grouped around the middle.

This makes evolutionary sense.

The bigger the difference between men's abilities the more easy it is for women to select the fittest mates, also the best of a diverse group of men is going to be much more intelligent than the best selected of a group of average men. Thus humanity's intellectual evolution advances more rapidly.

So arguing about the average is irrelevant when men's advantage and predominance in the upper echelons of intellectual endeavour is fairly clear and biological.

There is however a powerful political agenda at work which is tipping the balance in women's favour via the media and political influence.

This overt 'promotion of female power over men' trend is all about the pseudo-empowerment of women and the subjugation of men. The banking Oligarchs that control the western governments and all major companies, the IMF, World bank, BIS etc are implementing a world government and as with all takeovers the biggest threats must be neutralised.

Men are the biggest threat to the new world order.

Men are physically more dangerous, more likely to challenge authority (Men are more inclined to view totalitarian Government as an alpha male threat, women view it as a protector).

there are more stupid men than women but many more genius level men than women, and highly intelligent, critically thinking, physically strong, able to fight males is not what they want.

they also want to destroy any institution that promotes devotion to something other than the state. Such institutions form resistance to tyrannical government. Thus they orchestrated the massive attack on religion via the 'new atheism' and the destruction of the traditional family structure. They did this via the promotion of feminism. Women have been trained to dismiss traditional motherly nurturing feminine values to pursue masculine traits, thus making relationships with men more difficult as men have evolved to fight other men, not compete with women. This also erodes the family structure as male/female parenting roles work when they compliment each other as opposed to constant competitive conflict.

The Govt-controlled media has been engaging in an anti male campaign, portraying men as incompetent, lying, dumb, untrustworthy, sports-obsessed buffoons to subjugate men and give more power to women, to make society more controllable and easier to manipulate. The majority of movies now routinely portray women as kung fu expert kick-ass type traditionally masculine roles (nothing wrong with a bit of that but the prevalence and obvious overarching trend is unmistakeable) So some people are going to respond negatively to my post from a stance of cognitive dissonance and emotional investment, especially women but I'm right, to be honest it's fairly obvious to anyone that's done any research into globalism and their social engineering methods.

What's "MRM" about citing the data? I notice the naysayers never refer to data anywhere in their rebuttals, but jump straight to ad hominem attacks.

Every well-established IQ test shows male and female having the same average (as in mean) IQ, yet there is much more variance in the male scores than the female scores, so given a sample of an equal number of men and women, women outnumber men in the mid range, but as you move away from the center, the balance shifts towards men, with men scoring an excessive proportion of scores at the low and high extremes.

From that distribution you would expect (1) more women at undergraduate level than male undergraduates, (2) more male highschool drop-outs and criminals than women, but (3) more males in the top ranks of education as well.

This isn't an ideological position, this is just the results collected from of the very same tests that say men and women have equal mean IQ. I'm assuming you accept the findings of those tests of equal means, but reject the same tests findings of higher variance, which is cherry-picking the data at its finest.

The higher-variance in males IQ scores does exist. To pretend it doesn't, for purely ideological reasons ("being PC") falls into the trap Dr Flynn described:

"But you cannot say these things. They are forbidden. Which means of course we go on in ignorance of what actually causes group differences. Which means we can't provide any solutions. When you turn your back on reality you lose the ability to manipulate reality. One would think that is self-evident...I didn't go into this to not try to find the truth."

Given that women have long outnumbered men on college campuses and hold more advanced degrees than their male counterparts, it makes sense that they would also score higher on IQ tests. But for the last 100 years, they’ve lagged behind men by as much as five points—although their scores have been rising.

Finally, according to IQ expert James Flynn, women have closed the IQ gap and are in fact scoring higher than men, reports the Telegraph.

IQ — or intelligence quotient — the most widely used measure of intelligence and is determined based on one’s deviation from the average IQ score of a certain age group. It’s thought to be a product of both environmental and hereditary factors, and is a statistically reliable predictor of future educational achievement, job performance and income. But the reasons for demographic differences in IQ — for example, between races or genders — have long been widely debated.
There are many possible reasons that women finally surpassed men in IQ after a century of falling behind, according to Flynn, who is writing a book about IQ and gender.

One theory is that women have always been capable of scoring higher but, because of discriminatory gender socializing, never realized their own potential. Gender-based differences in education, upbringing and social roles have historically set the bar lower for women.

“This improvement is more marked for women than for men because they were disadvantaged in the past,” Flint told the Telegraph.

"according to a new analysis of 2,000 communities by a market research company, in 147 out of 150 of the biggest cities in the U.S., the median full-time salaries of young women are 8% higher than those of the guys in their peer group. In two cities, Atlanta and Memphis, those women are making about 20% more. This squares with earlier research from Queens College, New York, that had suggested that this was happening in major metropolises. But the new study suggests that the gap is bigger than previously thought, with young women in New York City, Los Angeles and San Diego making 17%, 12% and 15% more than their male peers, respectively. And it also holds true even in reasonably small areas like the Raleigh-Durham region and Charlotte in North Carolina (both 14% more), and Jacksonville, Fla. (6%)."

"It has been suggested that women choose less-paying occupations because they provide flexibility to better manage work and family.

A 2009 study of high school valedictorians in the U.S. found that female valedictorians were planning to have careers that had a median salary of $74,608, whereas male valedictorians were planning to have careers with a median salary of $97,734. As to why the females were less likely than the males to choose high paying careers such as surgeon and engineer, the New York Times article quoted the researcher as saying, "The typical reason is that they are worried about combining family and career one day in the future."

^ That is directly quoted from your own first link. It's about personal choice, not discrimination, if women are CHOOSING careers where they can better balance work and having a family, but don't pay as high.

...the other links I posted? Do you have nothing to say there? They prove you wrong, that's why you haven't mentioned them. Your own IQ has not enabled you to realize that I have been playing with you under your various handles all along - you're so easy! LOL!

men are more intelligent generally however, they tend to be lazy and unmotivated most of the time. cranial capacity is higher than women.western women, who wants equality must read why men are suffering because of female demand for equality. in EVERY society, women are subordinates not equals. but, America and europe wants to break the natural order by empowering women even though they are inferior intellectually and cognically.

Women are nowhere to be found when it comes to building homes/roads, farming the land, designing, building and fixing the machines/software that make everything work or advancing the sciences. Nope, they just want to jump right in there to the jobs they are actually capable of and be handed exactly the same amount of money as all the men who built the houses they live in and the cars they drive AFTER all the hard work has been done.

On top of that the median average hobby for the single working woman right through to the house wife is spending money in shopping malls, rather than for example, computers or building kit cars, or even mowing the lawn.

Fabricate all the studies you want and believe whatever you want - the evidence of reality is staring right back at you

"According to ASHE, in 2007 a gender pay gap does not open up until women reach about 30 years of age. From ages 18-29 there is hardly any difference and, according to the Labour Force Survey (LFS), women aged 22-29 are paid on average slightly more per hour than men. As the ONS concludes, having children is the decisive factor, not being a woman. Historical data confirm this conclusion. Based on the New Earnings Survey panel data, in 1975 there was a pay gap from the age of 18 onwards, but in 2006 no such gap existed until age 34. Why? In 1975 women tended to have children in their 20s and by 2006 it was more common to have them in their 30s. As the average age of child-rearing increased so too did the age at which the pay gap kicked in."

You seem to have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the subject matter, but, even without any academic basis whatsoever for expostulation, I can point out at least one ostensibly spurious semantic element of your argument (there are more rhetorical ones that led to the conclusion that you may have been trolling, but those are irrelevant to the topical premise of my counterargument). The fact that you seem to equate the statistical salience of very low intellect's preponderance by either gender with that of very high intellect would instantly discredit any ideological conclusion that could potentially be derived from it, even as a completely autonomous refutation. The fact that higher variances are so much more anomalous than any other interval on the intellectual spectrum not only diminishes its own relation to non-individualistic ramifications of human intellectual disparities, but renders the corollary perceptibility of the demographic proportion of such ramifications among those with genius intellect susceptible to Weber's law, bringing conclusions predicated on the statistical validity of this arbitrary genius prevalence into further question.

eh argument not great that time, so nevermind, but don't play dumb, man; this ain't your university, so don't like i don't know why you posted what you did. even if you're nowhere near dumb enough to qualify as one of the ~1.5e+10 actual mratards blighting the internet, i have no reason to believe anything you post is for the edification of anything other than your own sense of security. not that i care, in general, but at least gtfo the serious sites with that bs.

I think people are overestimating this difference. It may well lead to a prevalence of male nobels but won't have much effect beyond that.

Furthermore while there are more male math geniuses than female ones women occupy the higher reaches of verbal abilities.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302069

Further the difference in standard deviation is not found consistently so might be subject to change. A recent large scale (N = 15.000) study in Romania didn't find a difference in variance = standard deviation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616301003

You also overestimate the level it likely takes to be a nobel prize winner or scientific genius. Ann Roe's study of eminent (meaning top level) scientists in the 50s put their IQ at 160 and probably vastly overestimated it. Others found the IQ for top scientists to be centered around 130-140 rather.

And finally this is the Raven's matrices IQ test. As any test focused solely on g it doesn't show higher male variance as that is strongest in spatial abilities.

"He said he'd really appreciate that, because when he was interviewed, the interviewer kept asking him leading questions about women and multitasking, clearly wanting to get a particular answer out of him. This really bugs me."

As it should. Imagine if a study came out showing the IQ difference favoring men instead of women, with male journalists swarming around asking leading questions about men's larger brains and what not. Would that not be instantly be condemned as sexist and misogynistic?

So why is the media's misandry with regard to this issue not recognized for what it is? Have we reached a place, in 2013, where sexism towards women is rightly frowned upon but male- bashing is celebrated?

"Imagine if a study came out showing the IQ difference favoring men instead of women, with male journalists swarming around asking leading questions about men's larger brains and what not. Would that not be instantly be condemned as sexist and misogynistic?"

It is interesting that you say this, because a few studies have actually claimed that. Check out this article by Richard Lynn: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1274952/Men-ARE-brainy-women-says-scientist-Professor-Richard-Lynn.html

Lynn has conducted many meta-studies showing modest, but significant male advantage, and argues that males' larger brains makes them more intelligent. He is no fringe or crackpot, but well respected and admired in the individual differences field. Yes, he has been condemned as a sexist and misogynist. Others who have argued for the higher intelligence of males (off the top of my head) include Paul Irwing, Phil Rushton, Alan Jackson, and Helmuth Nyborg. All of them leading academics in intelligence research.

However, from what I have reviewed, IQ differences between groups are complicated and the findings in the literature are an absolute mess. The best studies with large, representative samples show negligible or no differences between the sexes, in contrast to findings of Lynn and Rushton. This seems to me a more robust and consistent finding.

With respect to those BS media reports, you are right. It should be clearly understood what Flynn is actually saying in this study. Flynn just happened to find a not-so-significant difference favoring females in those specific samples at those ages (an average of 0.7 point difference) - he clearly understands the many issues affecting the findings, as plenty of other studies find male advantages, and places his own findings in the proper context. Clearly, he believes the sexes to be equal in intelligence and never even mentioned multitasking. What a mess the media has made of this!

Unlike most commenters, you seem to have actually studied the subject,and done some intelligent analysis, so I'd be particularly interested in your assessment of the argument/evidence I offered in my comments above, “Scott, you elegantly demolish a silly straw man, but....”, and my follow-up comment, “A Logical and Evidentiary Juggernaut” where, in essence, I point out the irrelevance of any difference in mean IQ between genders, but the enormous impact of the apparent disparity in standard deviation, causing a superabundance of males at both tails.

Roger, what you say could be possible. Indeed there are many samples that show significant male variance not only on IQ, but on a multitude of cognitive abilities. However, this is not always found. Personally, I think we need further investigation before we can say for sure, but some evidence does support your assertions.

I would check out work by Jonathan Wai, Doug Detterman, Wendy Williams, and Steven Ceci who are experts on this.

The argument about the X-chromosome inactivation seems plausible, but I'm not qualified to comment on its validity. However I would be very hesitant to use genetic factors as an explanation unless there's good data.

Here is a rather obvious explanation on the standard deviation differences along with an explanation of the political machinations that seem to be promoting a misandrist angle.

The key issue here is not the average intelligence, it is roughly equal between the sexes, indeed the vast majority of studies have shown men to be 5 points higher on average.

The key issue that is being overlooked is the relative IQ distributions.

Men's IQs are more spread across the spectrum whereas women's are more grouped around the middle.

This makes evolutionary sense.

The bigger the difference between men's abilities the more easy it is for women to select the fittest mates, also the best of a diverse group of men is going to be much more intelligent than the best selected of a group of average men. Thus humanity's intellectual evolution advances more rapidly.

So arguing about the average is irrelevant when men's advantage and predominance in the upper echelons of intellectual endeavour is fairly clear and biological.

There is however a powerful political agenda at work which is tipping the balance in women's favour via the media and political influence.

This overt 'promotion of female power over men' trend is all about the pseudo-empowerment of women and the subjugation of men. The banking Oligarchs that control the western governments and all major companies, the IMF, World bank, BIS etc are implementing a world government and as with all takeovers the biggest threats must be neutralised.

Men are the biggest threat to the new world order.

Men are physically more dangerous, more likely to challenge authority (Men are more inclined to view totalitarian Government as an alpha male threat, women view it as a protector).

there are more stupid men than women but many more genius level men than women, and highly intelligent, critically thinking, physically strong, able to fight males is not what they want.

they also want to destroy any institution that promotes devotion to something other than the state. Such institutions form resistance to tyrannical government. Thus they orchestrated the massive attack on religion via the 'new atheism' and the destruction of the traditional family structure. They did this via the promotion of feminism. Women have been trained to dismiss traditional motherly nurturing feminine values to pursue masculine traits, thus making relationships with men more difficult as men have evolved to fight other men, not compete with women. This also erodes the family structure as male/female parenting roles work when they compliment each other as opposed to constant competitive conflict.

The Govt-controlled media has been engaging in an anti male campaign, portraying men as incompetent, lying, dumb, untrustworthy, sports-obsessed buffoons to subjugate men and give more power to women, to make society more controllable and easier to manipulate. The majority of movies now routinely portray women as kung fu expert kick-ass type traditionally masculine roles (nothing wrong with a bit of that but the prevalence and obvious overarching trend is unmistakeable) So some people are going to respond negatively to my post from a stance of cognitive dissonance and emotional investment, especially women but I'm right, to be honest it's fairly obvious to anyone that's done any research into globalism and their social engineering methods.

You got it right. It seems like this country and many others are trying to "fix" what doesn't need to be fixed, just evolved, perfected. There is good in aggression, it IS NOT just a male thing. But males were better suited for physical aggression. Because evil tendencies exist period, male and female. To throw out aggression is retarded. That would be the death of security in more ways than one. There are more applications for aggression than just violence. All aggression is, is getting things done and refusing to back down from a challenge. If controlled that is nothing but good. And men can control themselves, and men who do keep the world safe from criminals and the insane: both male and female. Genius level men aggressively pursued their visions and that bettered the world in many ways. Men are not stupid, men are not out of control, men ARE different from women, but not in so many ways as people think. And the ways they do differ--it is for a good reason. As far as intellect still we see: more idiots of men, below average, average, and above average is even, genius is more men than women. Personally I think this is because men who pioneer aggressive pursuit need to know where they are going when handed the reigns.

I do think men are naturally born to lead, not to say that a woman cannot. People are different. But in general from what I see in history, science, day to day--men in general evolved to lead. I can see men and women becoming intellectual equals, but men would still have that and the physical edge. I do not see women surpassing men as intellectual flat out, and even if they did in terms of IQ: If IQ indicates what is currently known, it doesn't mean much. If IQ indicates ability to learn or ability to use what you know...if that is not used, then the average guy will learn more eventually, which his extra knowledge will be able to boost his platform knowledge. He can learn how to think better, learn how to use his knowledge better, learn better techniques for learning, and actually aggressively taking on difficult roles can force the brain to develop. In other words, IQ just like much else of the brain and body and soul. Can change with effort. So IQ tests don't tell much. But achievement does. Fact is, men have accomplished more than women, you can say women could've if given the chance, but if they were from the get go smarter than men, they would've figured a way to take the reigns and it would not have taken thousands of years. They did not. That cannot be ignored. I can be changed, but it would take a lot of laying down on the men's part which seems to be the goal of America lately.

Lay down, have shame in yourself, your are a failed creation. Give up. No. Get up, control yourself, know that your world can be manipulated and it helps to have the "never say die" attitude to fix these problems and advance yourself however you see fit. That is how we got this far, it would be a sad day to see it go. And if women can catch up, let them legitimately catch up, don't bar them either--it'd be a hollow "victory" on either end if done any other way. But in reality since we are meant to co-exist any victory is everyone's victory. I'm saying give both a chance to advance, not just women and then ignore the men. I'm saying don't discredit men, and don't tell men that something is wrong with them for being what they are. There is nothing wrong with being a man.

The one published by Dr. Paul Irwing in 2012 was done on a representative sample in the US revealing a 3-point difference in favour of men.Of course I didn't expect any coverage of these new findings in the media :))

I want to address this extreme feminist bullcrap and this male vs female crap straight up.

1. Flynn's recent findings are flawed because he used test subjects of "women" and "men" 15-18. Women brains are more developed at this stage than men's are. The prefrontal cortex, the part that deals with:
Focusing attention
Organizing thoughts and problem solving
Foreseeing and weighing possible consequences of behavior
Considering the future and making predictions
Forming strategies and planning
Ability to balance short-term rewards with long term goals
Shifting/adjusting behavior when situations change
Impulse control and delaying gratification
Modulation of intense emotions
Inhibiting inappropriate behavior and initiating appropriate behavior
Simultaneously considering multiple streams of information when faced with complex and challenging information
www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/
Is done developing at age 25-30 FOR WOMEN. About 30-40 for men. You can look that up as well. That is why when the tests were previously set for 10-30 yr olds, it was more fair. That said:

2. Women should always have more IQ than men. Why? Look up gray matter in men's brain vs white matter in women's. You will see that women's brains have more connects to processing centers, men have bigger processing centers. Equal performance achieved. However, then you take in the fact that women have more connections to the amygdala and other parts of the brain responsible for emotion. Science (and life) shows that the more emotional impact and event has, the easier and longer you recall it. Also, the more the body and brain becomes engaged in the situation. So this gives women a boost in power, allowing them in theory to perform twice as efficiently as a man's brain, despite the size difference. This is also why women can't help but express what they "feel" and read into feelings, and never stop thinking where men can really and truly sit and think about absolutely nothing for an hours on end.

3. This comes at a risk. Look it up yourself: women are more susceptible to emotion and tricks of perception, value-reasoning vs logic-reasoning, pain/pleasure sensation, hormones/instincts. Because they are felt more intensely and due to all those neurons and extra sensory functions--fueled more intensely. More important than IQ is applying that IQ. IQ in the end is really just potential for learning and understanding. Even then you can't take the test if you don't know the basic information in the questions! So you have to use IQ to get a good IQ assessment, and use IQ further to succeed in life. There are girls with IQ higher than Albert, Hawkings, and Einstein, achieving substantially less.

Women dropping out because of their negative emotions. I'm sure many women arrive to the right answer before men and just don't say anything because they cannot overcome their doubt. If you look up the pdf "is math a gift?" you will see immense proof of this.

Women unable to endure pain even with the motivation of money. Men able to, and with money involved they substantially increased pain threshold.

Women's brains magnifying emotions and connecting one thing to another, one instance to another makes them more susceptible to inductive reasoning (this means this always, this means all of these are this). Men are better at deduction, even with lack of intuition.

Men have an edge when it comes to overcoming adversity. In other words as long as we are encouraging women to integrate into STEM (science technology engineering math) and pamper and adore them. They will excel. Upon things getting too difficult stress starts eating at them and this happens:

Women's stress kills their brain. Now you may point to studies of men's brains shrinking faster than women. But those studies were not correlated with negative effects, they happen naturally it would seem. My theory for this goes back to women's brain connecting everything which is what makes them good at multi-tasking. That is not necessarily a good thing. Men take things one at a time, and they pick and choose better what they want to accomplish. So a possible explanation of the brain shrinking is that it doesn't need that much mass because it is getting more efficient in its use in its own way.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201106/brain-wiring

You see female brain have less axons, but they still perform well. Both brains lose axons, but they don't need them because of how sharp the brain has become at age 60. The brain is doing substantially more with less. Even beyond that, the advantage of focusing on one thing versus 4: Women working on say: construction, math, science, writing. Man just working on science. A year later, woman is more rounded (a benefit for general intellect tests) but in the area of science man is 4xs more advanced. That is why even though there are women with higher iq than Einstein and Nicola Tesla, I seriously doubt they will go even near as far. Because they are SPECIALIST in their chosen field. This is also why men are better at martial arts and warfare because of less distractions, they take charge of the situation and carry a plan out from start to finish without deviation, without slowing down, without getting caught. I say martial arts and warfare because these allow even women to overcome the disadvantage of less muscle mass. This is the real reason why men ended up running the show.

5. Women point to the Y chromosome disappearing. My response to this, is that it is SHRINKING. Just like the brain of a man, but looked at processors in computers and even just computers and computerized devices now as compared to 10 years ago. Smaller, but more POWERFUL, more efficient. Like a block of wood is defeated by a tiny nail even when hammered in by the human hand or foot. Density, more potential power. Which is why you see this:

This indicates that men's chromosome have already gotten rid of all of the unnecessary genes and have GROWN the necessary ones. Efficiency.

6. God is a woman--I say God is beyond man and woman, but if you look at the Hebrew Tanakh, Elohim is the masculine plural of Eloha (feminine noun) but it is is paired with a masculine verb at all times. Even Spirit of God, masculine verb. Meaning female attribute being used in a masculine manner by a masculine power. Eve came from Adam, before then Adam was in the perfect image of God unsplit, meaning that "woman" would be an invention of man, but male and female didn't come until they were SPLIT. Two halves of an equal whole! Which is why you still need MALE SPERM to give birth to a FEMALE BABY! Even with artificial sperm and artificial eggs they are artificial SPERM and artificial EGGS! We need each other.

7. Women work better in groups than men. That would be true, and explains another reason why girl's do better in school. More obedient, men have egos. We have to prove ourselves and do what we want to do. That is individualism, independence, which is a good things which is why women are sexually attracted to leaders. Because leaders bring about order which compromises teamwork in the long run.

8. Women live longer than men. War has a lot to do with that. Come 2016-2020, watch that life expectancy lower. Also, men being in the forefront in a lot of things puts them at more risk. Men willingly take more risks, men are involved in violent sports...why have all that testosterone and a body built for endurance (clearly both mental and physical) if you are not going to use it? Women are getting into this as well and that is why this is happening:

http://www.examiner.com/article/women-s-life-expectancy-declining

Also men who are more focused in their tasks if they choose to say commit suicide or do drugs, they 4xs more likely to actually go through with it. However:

It may take LONGER for women to explode due to their preference of passive aggression, but without a common enemy (men) they fall apart faster. Upon falling apart, they start the cold war. When they do (and will) explode they are actually more ruthless than men. I have been in many fights and witnessed many fights--women are more likely to beat their opponent to death if you don't pull them off. Why? Because women take EVERYTHING personal, and remember everything. Log it in, magnify their already magnified emotions. So they keep at the beating until their emotions settle, this can take a while. Yeah, imagine that with bombs, bullets, missiles, nukes? Women also report feeling more regret than men, and being overall less happy and satisfied in life which is why they are more prone to depression. REGRET = TOO LATE, PREMATURE DECISION, INSECURITY, LACK OF SELF-CONFIDENCE.

11. Studies show women bosses are better, fairer, more decisive, more respected. No, women bosses are more novel in the eyes of men becoming more and more effeminate. Fairer, yes--out of fear and stress. They are more decisive because they know if they falter they will be crucified. THAT is unfair, but it happens, which is why women (look it up) retire and quit far more than men do. They cannot handle the pressure in the long term. They are receiving more and more job opportunities because men are 1. Sexually attracted. 2. Interested in the feminist movement. 3. This is dumb.

12. So to conclude:
Woman advantages: higher iq, better at multi-tasking, less genetic mutations (because of less rapid rate of evolution of their x chromosomes), less risk taking, emotional intelligence, intuition.

Male advantages: lower iq (but in the end just as you couldn't take that test if you didn't know, if you have high iq but I used my iq more and 2 years later I know 20xs more than you--I am more capable than you period), but we do more with ours, better at focus-tasking (which is why men are usually diagnosed with ADHD and women are diagnosed "often late" with ADD-ADHD), you can look up another study that shows moles close in dna structure to primates who are close to us did the same Y downsizing down to 15 gene and kept those 15 genes strong for over 30 million years, still strong today, mutation rate negligible now. You have to risk to learn something new and accomplish something new. Men have more endurance to their deep subconscious issues as well to go with the physical endurance, and they use that endurance to reason faster and act sooner.

Women have more intuition at a normal state they are also better at deductive reasoning than a man is. However it doesn't really take much to change that: this is how pimps and players work. It runs in my family, I've seen it, done it for a little while then I stopped out of moral code; however it works easily and women are turned on by it even if they are smarter and even when they know what is going on. This bothers men with daughters which is why they are quick to accept this feminist movement. But stuff like "please just fucking fuck me already!" on craiglist hurt that ideal. More intuition, but that won't stop them from ignoring it and making bad decisions. More intuition, men have more control over their decisions.

We are equal overall, but when it comes to roles men by evolution AND God (as I believe firmly in both) have DESIGNED man to take the leadership role and hold on to it. My prediction if men don't realize this and start taking the reigns back although their will be a few women (most with a bit more androgen in their system than most other women), then we will start to see many, many problems start to pile up eventually. Women's iqs will rise above, then sharply start dropping again, women's mortality rate will overtake our own, women will be more stressed out, more depressed, start making worse decisions with pride (it sets me free), start looking at us more and more for help and getting angry with us when we don't, and this artificial reproduction:

All this is is a baby without the pleasure of sex. And a boy being raised by a woman who is NOT a man no matter how much she tries to be. Men and women are different. If a woman says otherwise, she teaches her son with no father to be a woman which conflicts with his truest programming creating a flawed human neither man nor woman, just incapable and weak.

In the meantime the evolved alpha males of tomorrow will enjoy a surplus of women who won't admit they've made a mistake.

You can say sex and life are different, sex is a part of life. No matter how "stressed" a man is if he is a real man, besides some scratching, safe biting, you climbing on top, maybe a pink in the a-hole or a tongue. He is not going to have you call him a bitch, make you drink his piss, have you pull his hair hard, smack and beat on him, choke him, punch him in his stomach, let you shove anything in this anus or his throat, if he allows you to facefuck him, trust me--there is a large degree of discomfort, only reason he is doing it is because he is going to take it out on you in about a minute and he enjoys you stoking his fire [there is a clear limit there], have you manipulate HIS body in every which way...no. And none of that is required--I'm not talking just rough pounding. Woman's clit which is quite big inside of a woman's body and connected to various places head to toe responds with pleasure to pressure. It can be overriden if a woman is really not into it or that afraid, but this is why even rape victims admit to feeling pleasure and even orgasming after being raped sometimes. Look it up. Of course if that is the case, rough sex would feel good...but everything I described above has nothing to do with direct sensation. It is pleasure added due to the thrill of being dominated if you choose to look it at in just a sexual manner that is a choice yes, as well as an excuse to protect yourself from the truth. Straight women will not even WANT to talk to a guy who is perceived to be submissive, and the more dominant a man is, the more they can't stop thinking about him. Fact.

All of this is fact, look it up, and look around, and decide what is best for mankind's future, I mean really.

The key is balance guys. What God intended at first. Use your feminine side in direct support of your masculine side and vice-versa. Become even MORE self-sufficient and you will become an even better leader but even upon that happening: working with a woman by your side puts you even FURTHER ahead if you work well together. We need each other, always have, always will.

Just because a man is in the leadership position does not make him superior. For the people by the people is true even in dictatorships. A guy with a gun by himself didn't walk into a country and take over millions of people. Millions allowed it, thousands (military for one) support him, millions live in fear and don't band together and rise up but if they did, they would win. Support, support, support. Men and women are EQUAL, just different roles.

Adam and Eve...that was just 1 out of 12 points. You're ignoring everything else I wrote and backed with research that you can research yourself, even many links that you can just copy and paste? Also, THAT point, and EVERY point is only here because of mass arguments and these points have been come up the most from feminists across the world as to why women are superior. Come on! That is how I started my post by stating that I was responding to the bull. Response, I didn't come up with the points, I addressed them. I even said at the start of 6: this shouldn't really mater...

You are cherry picking to discredit me, and you are doing a very poor job at it, providing no real argument besides that you don't like the inclusion of God, Adam, and Eve. I am dealing with people and society and the reason you know God, Adam, and Eve is become God, Adam, and Eve are engrossed in SOCIETY.

I just reread number 6, even tho I did type while I typing "not that this matters, but people people bring it up" I must've accidentally erased it during speedy editing. Still, people did bring it up, and I'm saying it now.